Friday, November 18, 2016

When even a conservative as hopelessly, haplessly cucky as Rod Dreher is beginning to become indifferent to accusations of racism - although, he still never misses a chance to wag his finger and remind everyone that real racism is very bad - then you know we're on the verge of a preference cascade. Dreher responds to an email from a reader named Andrew who actually has gone ahead and swallowed it at the American Conservative:

Dear Liberals, Democrats, progressives, leftists: Your use of the word “racist” doesn’t work anymore. We get it. You’re superior. You’re enlightened and we’re not. You care about diversity and we don’t. We only listen to dog whistles. We have given up trying to talk you out of your presumptions, or trying to earn your approval. We no longer consider it worth our while to reassure you that we’re not “that kind” of Republican.But the fact is, we’re not as stupid as you think we are, and we see right through you. And if there’s one thing Trump has done, he’s given us some backbone to make our voices heard. Of course, that means “expressions of racism” will increase. (OMG!) And every child who behaves like a bully will be blamed on Trump. The fact is, we just won’t care about your freak-outs. Go ahead and caterwaul. You lost, and you deserved to lose.I cast my vote for Trump reluctantly. Now, I couldn’t be prouder.

Thoughts?

I understand where Andrew is coming from in this e-mail, and I highlight it here to point out that a country in which people do not feel shame over racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions is a morally diminished country. I take Andrew’s point to mean that the left has accused him and people like him of racism for so many things, no matter how trivial, that the accusation doesn’t faze him anymore. I have been saying for some time now that if the alt-right grows in power and influence, it will be because ordinary people get tired of being bullied by these kinds of accusations, and choose to ally with people who might actually be bona fide racists, but who aren’t bothered by the attacks from the left.

I think Trump’s not giving a rip about political correctness was a big factor in his rise. If you’ve been reading me all year, you know that I’ve objected to his vulgarity and coarseness on many occasions. Trump lowers our discourse, and normalizes ways of talking in public that ought not be normalized. Having said that, it is undeniably true that the willingness of many on the left to demonize as bigots (racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, etc.) white people who don’t live up to strict progressive blasphemy codes has called forth contempt for the (necessary and important) taboo against racism itself.

Think of it like this: Prohibition encouraged contempt for the law. If you pass so many “laws” around normal discourse, saying to transgress them makes you an “outlaw” (= bigot), then you should not be surprised when people go full Uncle Chuckie, and cease caring.

And once people stop caring, it rapidly becomes apparent to everyone that the "necessary and important" taboo against racism is neither necessary or important. Remember, the pendulum never stops on a dime; just as the Left turned the taboo against homosexuality into a pseudo-disease, the rise of the Alt-Right will coincide with the taboo against racism transforming into something widely seen as being considerably more deleterious than "homophobia".

98 Comments:

He's not 'contemplating the red pill', He's telling Lefties that Other People are contemplating the red pill, and if they don't fix their act Those Bad Other People will swallow that red pill.

Dreher is a liberal who realized you can't be a sincere Christian and a modern Liberal at the same time. So he casts longing gazes at the Left and upbraids literally everyone to his right, in hopes he'll be able to move a little bit left himself, if they move first.

Wow, he got his virtue signaling into that saccharine, testosterone free whine. He managed to preen about Trump being vulgar, people on the right no longer being sufficiently awed by the evil of racism and people on the left making it difficult for him to preen about people on the right being racist.

To me the idea of racism, bigotry, prejudice, etc. has always been about genuine hatred and persecution, false accusations, etc. Ditto the word "bigot." I guess at this point it's a lost cause to argue about it.

I can't argue with you. Like Dreher, it bothers me we now appear to no longer have useful words to describe important concepts. It's clear that the biggest recipients of racism in the USA are now lower-class Whites. To me it's still useful to say that, as it restores the word to its rightful meaning--or at least what I thought was its rightful meaning.

I think ultmately the Cultural Marxist's biggest victory has been their control of language. You can see it in the work of Stephen Pinker, where he denies any such control is even possible even while exerting it.

A bigot is someone who thinks themselves better than others in the eyes of God (or whatever they think of as God). A racist is someone who hates based on race--and yes they do exist. Today it's obvious the biggest bigots and racists are self-hating white "liberals" and basically almost anyone who supported Clinton.

I'm probably on the losing side of this--words like bigot and racist have clearly been rendered useless, I finally got that through my head earlier this year--but the question is, what DO we replace the words with? If I want to say someone's a bloviating idiot who thinks his "hispanic" heritage and olive skin give him some special moral high ground over my very white sons, I want to call him a bigot and a racist because he is one.

It's obvious the altright chose to reject these words outright, but I think that long-term it's going to need new words to mean the same things. Literally, I once told a former friend that she's a privileged bigoted racist and sexist--which infuriated her and left her sputtering, since she's black and a feminist. But it had never even occurred to the cunt that she might be. She lost a friend that way, which I don't regret, and I know it stung. It may even make her think. It certainly lost her a friend, which also likely stung.

Other words rapidly losing their sting because the Left has expanded their range of meaning far beyond anything a reasonable person would consider justifiable: abuse, rape and anything ending in -phobic.

In this hitherto Current Year age of mincing, mewling, mealy-mouthed manginatalk - when nearly everybody in public life timorously tapdanced around obvious truths more gingerly than Fred Astaire with a bomb-tipped buttplug, and FUCK YOU, WHITE CISHET BIGOTS! was the cri du jour - Trump has appeared like an avenging angel of awesomeness and authenticity.

"I think Trump’s not giving a rip about political correctness was a big factor in his rise."

At least he got this 100% right, Trump actual has a set of balls. But then he shows his own lack of balls with a followup caveat about Trump's 'vulgarity'? Excuse me, what? Whatever....Trump's courage in breaking through the real 'glass ceiling' in American politics - the PC ceiling - has been his greatest contribution to the American landscape thus far.

If I want to say someone's a bloviating idiot who thinks his "hispanic" heritage and olive skin give him some special moral high ground over my very white sons, I want to call him a bigot and a racist because he is one.

Some suggestionsSpic, Greaseball,Wetback,Invader,Living Proof That Mexican Indians Fucked Their Tiny dogs,Taco Bender,That Purely Mexican Combination of Dishonest Spanish Homosexual Thievery and Low IQ Indian Savagery,Indio,Foreigner,Deportable,I'm sure you get the idea.I've yet to meet a Mexican that thinks racism is a bad thing, unless it disavantages them personally, or other Mexicans.

There have simply been too many examples of black-on-white crime, jihad massacres, abortion fad etc for us to give left accusations any weight.

When Obama invites ClockBoy Mohammed into his arms, which runs counter to common sense (Texas school administrators have an obligation, not out of racism, but reality, to act protectively), it demonstrates that the left is the side that has to answer.

"I think Trump's not giving a rip about political correctness was a big factor in his rise."

This is what I most value on him, when he said in his candidacy acceptance discourse: "We have to destroy political correctness, this country cannot waste time engaging in nice deceptive talking anymore" I got really emotional, this is when he won me over.

In my view of all he's promised, if all he just does is destroy political correctness he's truly the god emperor.

In this hitherto Current Year age of mincing, mewling, mealy-mouthed manginatalk - when nearly everybody in public life timorously tapdanced around obvious truths more gingerly than Fred Astaire with a bomb-tipped buttplug, and FUCK YOU, WHITE CISHET BIGOTS! was the cri du jour - Trump has appeared like an avenging angel of awesomeness and authenticity.

Agreed 200%. Talk about a breath of fresh air amid all the doublespeak, bafflegab, excessive submissive civility on the cucks' part, and necessary things left unsaid. It's about time we got a president who talks like a man instead of a prissy Eurofag elitist prancing around in Brussels.

Suggested responses to accusations of racism, sexism, et al.So what?I don't care.Thank you for noticing.What's wrong with you, that you're not?I am America, and so can you!Dogs bark, and the moon cares not.Look at the monkey! It's almost like it's talking!These words you keep using. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.Put that in writing, so I can hand it to my lawyer.These are my middle fingers. They show how much I care.In the immortal words of Blazing Saddles, "Up yours, nigger!"

The future of the alt-right is not to simply ignore accusations of racism because the word itself has been played out, but rather to accept racism as a very healthy and normal thing. Preference for your own kind is the normal, default setting that everybody is born with, and is how every race on the planet operates other than whites.

Dean Esmay wrote: If I want to say someone's a bloviating idiot who thinks his "hispanic" heritage and olive skin give him some special moral high ground over my very white sons, I want to call him a bigot and a racist because he is one.

True racism, as it was explained to me as a kid, by a father who is probably more alt-right than mainstream conservative is more or less genuine hatred of people because they are of a different race. It's not wanting separation, being prejudiced, etc. It's when you as a white man can meet a black man in a suit, who speaks better English than most white people, has a picture perfect family that are law-abiding, college-bound, etc. and still treat him like he's no better than a hood rat who collects criminal convictions the way kids used to collect baseball cards.

So it really is intrinsically evil. It's also vanishingly rare and not germane to anything the Alt-Right wants.

I understand where Andrew is coming from in this e-mail, and I highlight it here to point out that a country in which people do not feel shame over racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions is a morally diminished country.

Look Rod here is the deal. When Privilege Theory became the accepted religion of the Left. Racism changed from something you did to "Something You Are".

It really doesn't matter under privilege theory. If you are white you are racist, that is all there is to it.

We didn't choose Identity Politics, it was thrust upon us. After that it was just a matter of facing reality.

Same guy pays Dreher to be David Brooks.https://infogalactic.com/info/Rod_DreherThat was the Dallas Morning News, he admits that he was pretty much the only ''Christian'' or ''conservative'' there. So like George Will on WaPo/ABC he was the pet ''conservative''.It's also why he's quite at home among lefties.

The Wick Allison who publishes both The American Conservative and D Magazine is an Obama conservative, which is an oxymoronic distinction sort of like "bisexual". D Magazine is rabidly liberal and TAC admits only conservatives who bend the knee and retract their master's foreskin for service gently, after asking politely first.

Trump's election immediately threatened to leave whole swathes of people out in the cold, and the cold is a lonely and unpleasant place. Better to lick bottom for admission into the gread mead hall with the fire, even if your place is only up against the wall.

"country in which people do not feel shame over racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions is a morally diminished country."

We would LIKE to see a bit (lot) of shame from the people who think it's NOT a morally *destroyed* country when they support racist thoughts, beliefs,and actions that include murdering White cops; (murdering Whites); attacking random Whites and beating them into a coma, attacking random White NYC subway riders with knives and razors and slicing their faces to pieces; burning down neighborhoods (usually their own, but they're trying to spread it to ours!); the Attny General(s) of the entire country give a complete pass to "their people" for heinous crimes, but harassing OUR people for NON-crimes; and etc. etc.

"you know that I’ve objected to his vulgarity and coarseness on many occasions."

When I joined a gun forum, several months after Ferguson, I read through an 'off-topic' thread (some 20 pages) of comments about it. My first post to the forum was in response to that thread. All these great, lovely, nice, "conservative" and mostly "Republican" (and mostly male) commenters were semi-willing to write openly and honestly about Ferguson -- but almost to a man, they all began their messages with:

"I'm not a racist but ..."

I pointed that out, and my wail of anguish to them was: "WHY THE HELL NOT!?!?"

I have since continued posting facts; including the 578 slicing attacks (mostly in the NYC subway) just between 1st Jan and 26th Feb this year (actual count posted by the actual NYPD! Updated count NOT posted anywhere I could find; gee, I wonder why?) And the *police* actually announced that EVERY SINGLE ATTACKER WAS BLACK! (But of course: 'we're baffled why these attacks were rising, when other crime was falling.') (God protect us from liars lying!)

And yes, my .... delicate (well, partly; sometimes I just lay it out there!) ... posting of facts and reality has driven at least one man, spitting "racist" and "go back to Stormfront" to be banned. (Good moderators!)

But, by calmly laying out the facts, with links and refs, and even with pix (of the a number of sliced-up folks -- and WITHOUT the "I'm not a racist, but (fact fact fact)" (cause I AM a racist!) I have encouraged more and more "nice" White men to be willing to 'speak' truth.

The problem with his attempt to maintain his position as tone-policeman of the right is simple: if we're no longer bothered by "Racist!!!", "morally diminished" just produces a chuckle and a shake of the head. To paraphrase someone Rod claims to have admired: There he goes again.

@27 "This is what the Leftists and Globalists are terrified of; the rebirth of militant Christendom."

This is what I (would) pray for (if I prayed).

The weak, 'oh I'm an evil bad horrible sinner,' motionless, worthless, useless, modern day Christians (they're not all Churchians -- some Christians are this as well! Or is that part of the definition of Churchian?) is what turned me off Christianity in the first place.

I'm about 70% sure (in my jaundice) that "Saint" Paul was a jewish mole / "revolutionary," sent to destroy the White Romans on behalf of the jews! If Peter was the Chosen Successor if Jesus, how did PAUL manage to end up setting the plan? (And WHY did the plan weaken, sap, break apart, destroy the WHITE people "Saint" Paul went amongst?)

That may, as I wrote, just be my jaundice -- and I mean no offense to y'all -- but from outside, over here, I see two ... versions ... of Christianity; one that built the wonders that are White Euro civilization (to white I deeply belong), and one that DESTROYED White Euro civilization. (Or is that just since the jews managed to move in and sap the White Euro Christian civilization?)

Dreher's (and many of the #nevertrump) opposition to Trump was based on style, not substance. "Not our class, dear". Yes, he's often boorish, crude, crass, vulgar, all those things. The substance between him and Hillary was a mile wide, and that's why he won.

He made the point of all of it explicitly -- feeling shame about "racist" thoughts. That is their real enemy.

They cannot abide people actually THINKING about the issue. You can only think within the approved bounds. Once you start thinking objectively, then all of the carefully constructed guilts start getting shattered, the sympathetic groups stop being so sympathetic, and eventually the (((most sympathetic))) become the least, and the whole edifice collapses.

"Trump lowers our discourse, and normalizes ways of talking in public that ought not be normalized.

Yeah, right. "Grab her by the pussy," said in a private conversation, is so, SO much worse than the JayZ gangsta thug rapper language CELEBRATED as "diversity" by the Democrats at the Clinton campaign event.

Why is it so, SO much worse? Because it was said (GASP!) by a rich white man, the most deplorable of Les Deplorables - EXCEPT when those rich white men (think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, for examples) spout the official Narrative and kowtow to the minor gods of Political Correctness.

If anyone should feel shame, it is Rod and others who tacitly (and not so tacitly) supported the election of Hillary Clinton as so-called conservatives. They chose a known destroyer, who had made specific evil promises, over a man they thought might be worse based on bad dreams they had about him or something. It didn't matter that his platform was solid, that he made strong promises, that he surrounded himself with their kind of people (what better endorsement can a conservative ask for than Pat Buchanan?), and that the liberal Republicans and media Rod has complained about over the years opposed him. Never mind all that; Rod somehow knew better than everyone, because....maybe he might turn out worse, you never know.

As a tone-policeman, Rod is like a cop who has discovered that fleeing suspects no longer react to warning shots, so he's resorted to shouting, "Please stop, or else I'll ask again!"

@32 True racism, .. is more or less genuine hatred of people because they are of a different race. It's not wanting separation, being prejudiced, etc. It's when you as a white man can meet a black man in a suit, who speaks better English than most white people, has a picture perfect family that are law-abiding, college-bound, etc. and still treat him like he's no better than a hood rat who collects criminal convictions the way kids used to collect baseball cards.So it really is intrinsically evil. It's also vanishingly rare and not germane to anything the Alt-Right wants.

Disagree strongly! Certainly there may be racists who think this way. However, what you’ve written is classic "IKAGO" = "I know a good one." The problem is: you are applying the false "good one" premise to an individual, and ignoring the fact that his GENES will be passed down, and regression to the mean (or liberal brainwashing of his kids and grandkids) will result in what we have today. Racism is NOT intrinsically evil; it's recognizing Nature and truth. (Nature AS truth!)

My bro-in-law is black, my sister's kid is mulatto. My (unachievable) goal would be to send ALL africans BACK to africa. (Protect MY people and MY civilization from a people and their ... lack of ... civilization that is NOT reparable!) And (in my dream) Whites who have miscegenated must decide where their loyalty lies: with their race or their new bloodline. That's a HORRIBLE thing, a terrible decision to force on anyone. My sister would choose her family (of COURSE she would, she's WHITE, and while (apparently) not actively K-selected, she has enough of it to cherish family. (HER family going down the line, NOT her heritage.)

My bro-in-law is NOT a hood rat (nor is his kid): he's a novelist and was a prize-winning classical (White Euro-derived classical) musician. He IS a typical over-emotional, "hates-Whitey" (even though he's married to one?!), "racism is EVERYwhere" and "all Whites are racist" black man. And have raised their kid that way. (He's not a hood rat; but they agree 100% with Black Lies Matter!)

Racism is absolutely germane to what the Alt Right wants! If you/we WANT a White Euro-derived civilization to exist, to continue, (to come back!), then you must hold THAT civilization as foremost in everything you support and do -- and hold every OTHER race as lesser to it.

p.s., Mike, you're not a dictionary, you don't get to set "the One True Definition" of words to suit yourself. True racism in MY dictionary is: love for and protection of MY race by MY people. It is SAVING my race from destruction by other races. It is holding MY race as way more important than any other race. (Just as every other race except mine does their race!) It is SO not evil!

We've imported morally diminished people, and diminished the morality of the left's identity players. That is the source of both IQ and morality being diminished."Democracy" requires a minimum IQ and morality, but although it has gone down, the decline is not uniform. Only certain areas are rioting.Civil discourse is for ivory towers - how well would it work against the rioters?

@51 Things are breaking on racial lines. It'll be militant Whiteness this time, and the perfidy of the (((Whites))) will be recognized and punished ruthlessly. Likely with what they planned to do to the Whites.

tz wrote:Civil discourse is for ivory towers - how well would it work against the rioters?My civil discourse for rioters comes in three types: .380 auto, 9mm and 7.62.

The token cuckservative wonders if it is OK for his morale to improve, even though the beatings don't hurt as much as they used to. If even Rod Dreher's readers are becoming immune to "Raycism" accusations then we are at the cusp of a real turn in national mindset.

Mike wrote:True racism, as it was explained to me as a kid, by a father who is probably more alt-right than mainstream conservative is more or less genuine hatred of people because they are of a different race. It's not wanting separation, being prejudiced, etc. It's when you as a white man can meet a black man in a suit, who speaks better English than most white people, has a picture perfect family that are law-abiding, college-bound, etc. and still treat him like he's no better than a hood rat who collects criminal convictions the way kids used to collect baseball cards.

1. Treating someone like they don't deserve is not "racism", its bad manners.

"It's when you as a white man can meet a black man in a suit, who speaks better English than most white people, has a picture perfect family that are law-abiding, college-bound, etc. and still treat him like he's no better than a hood rat who collects criminal convictions the way kids used to collect baseball cards."

@Mike; When the gov eliminates Affirmative Action from schools, workplace, government etc., then I will treat him as an equal. Can you get behind that? Or are you afraid that the riots will start.

Like Dreher, it bothers me we now appear to no longer have useful words to describe important concepts

The greatest tool the left has used is destroying the meaning of words. Muslim instead of Moslem so you don't know how Tom Jefferson, Gen Blackjack Pershing, Charles Martel & Vlad Tepes stopped jihad against the West for generations each or the entire 1400year history of moslems.

Before this is all said and done, they'll be coming after Stefan Molyneux as a white nationalist.

Even MILO sleeping with blacks has been called white nationalist.

I reply "I am not anti-semitic. It's just that I am not PRO-semitic."

I am a Zionist, I agree with the Prime Minister of Israel that jews should go to Israel.

crude, crass, vulgar, all those things. The substance between him and Hillary was a mile wide, and that's why he won.

TRUMP only liked girls with big titties while Bill&Hill were happy with 6yo Haitian cheese.

white man can meet a black man in a suit, who speaks better English than most white people, has a picture perfect family that are law-abiding, college-bound

I am willing to admit that its possible to meet such a person. Are you are willing to admit that you are talking about less than 2% of black men? I say this as someone who worked with a black doctor that malpracticed himself to death via a drug error before computerized pharmacies, but has not yet meet what you described.

> I understand where Andrew is coming from in this e-mail, and I highlight it here to point out that a country in which people do not feel shame over racist thoughts, beliefs, and actions is a morally diminished country.

I find it physically uncomfortable to read people like him. I can read Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, Adolf Hitler fine, but Dreher gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Why do we need a taboo against racism. That's just weird. There's so much to be wrong about, why not let people be wrong about race (assuming for the sake of argument that "racists" are wrong, and that everyone agrees what a racist is, though pretty much no one does)? Why erect taboos against beliefs that were perfectly normal a couple of generations ago. This guy is taboo-happy.

@3-It's never too late, especially for something as unnatural as antiracism. The idea that normal racism, i.e. noticing race, can so easy turn into hatred, oppression, etc. that we have to be externally vigilant against it is ridiculous. The very fact that I used the term "normal racist" would make some people shriek "Witch!" at me, despite the fact that if you look at the dictionary definition you'll find a perfectly harmless entry right beside the indiscriminately cyanide gassing everyone who's different from you because you have a small penis and hate the world entry.

Avalanche wrote:@27 "This is what the Leftists and Globalists are terrified of; the rebirth of militant Christendom."

This is what I (would) pray for (if I prayed).

The weak, 'oh I'm an evil bad horrible sinner,' motionless, worthless, useless, modern day Christians (they're not all Churchians -- some Christians are this as well! Or is that part of the definition of Churchian?) is what turned me off Christianity in the first place.

I'm about 70% sure (in my jaundice) that "Saint" Paul was a jewish mole / "revolutionary," sent to destroy the White Romans on behalf of the jews! If Peter was the Chosen Successor if Jesus, how did PAUL manage to end up setting the plan? (And WHY did the plan weaken, sap, break apart, destroy the WHITE people "Saint" Paul went amongst?)

That may, as I wrote, just be my jaundice -- and I mean no offense to y'all -- but from outside, over here, I see two ... versions ... of Christianity; one that built the wonders that are White Euro civilization (to white I deeply belong), and one that DESTROYED White Euro civilization. (Or is that just since the jews managed to move in and sap the White Euro Christian civilization?)

What, oh what, became of "Onward Christian Soldier"?!

The answer to question one is yes, that is a fairly good working definition of a cuck. There is nothing in Christianity hostile to masculinity whereas Progressivism is quite hostile masculinity or, indeed, any healthy expression of love or humanity.

Second question: Paul set much of the agenda because 'greater things than these you will do.' and in my humble because he was the one God selected to do so.

Also, I can say with some confidence that when I meet real Christians they are, as a rule, red pilled. Because Christianity is supposed to be about seeing the truth not indulging in bizarre fantasies.

A reminder that the early Christians in the colonies would often be fined for failing to bring their weapon to services.

@40-There's nothing special about "privilege theory," except that it is perhaps a bit quicker to the punch than previous fads. I don't know why you give it the dignity of referring to it as "theory." It's a stick with which to beat people, with almost no intellectual content. The fashion is to call academic fads blank-theory, but there's no reason we have to play along. This particular theory is merely entry #60742-7863 in the deconstruct whitey playbook.

Racism has been "something you are" ever since I can remember. When I was a kid, the logic went "racism is about power; white people have power, so only white people are racists." There was no attempt made to argue why racism is about power. That was a bald assertion. There was no attempt made to demonstrate white people have all the power, despite the existence of affirmative action and black run cities. That was taken as a given. There was no talk of non-white countries, where presumably non-whites had power, and whether they can be racist. That was beside the point. Racism theory is about white people, stupid.

Again, nothing special about privilege "theory." PC has gotten worse, and stupider, but it's been on that trajectory for a long time. There was no break with reality, no turning point.

72. tublecane: We "need" a taboo against racism because reason won't work. There's a reason to avoid screwing your cousin, but we add the taboo to help the idiots who can't reason. But reason supports racism, so a taboo is all they've got.

While calling someone else a "racist" has been a non-starter for the diverse white Americans, there are a lot of tools in the tool box that can shatter a drive-by verbal or written assault against them. The number one tool is "supremacist" which can stop cucks in their tracks and which is almost always present in SJW assaults. "Supremacist" is still a fear-word, and it does apply to people who say or write things about the diverse white Americans as a whole demographic. Attacking back with a fear-word almost always changes the flow of any controversy and "supremacist" applies to anyone who claims the right to name, label, define, or describe the diverse white Americans...it is obvious, in fact, that it is the first step into the quicksand of supremacy.

"Racism" or "anti-white" do not move the attackers emotional take on the situation.

What should also be noted is that slurs are committed by omission as well as commission. For example, there is no truth more obvious (and celebrated as recently as 35 years ago) than our diversity. The reason it is never attached to white Americans is that our adversaries' goal is to put us into one box, making us more easy to put into "boxcars." Consider then-US Senator Obama in 2008 characterizing his mom's mom as "a typical white person" meaning "no diversity over there."

The other invisible slander is that we are not quite "Americans." With almost every other demographic, you'll see it attached: African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, and American Indian or Native American. Only the diverse white Americans are never called "Americans."

These are all openings in the social war we see around us to attack back.

@77-I'm wondering why a taboo against racism specifically, when there are so many other briefs, behaviors, desires, etc., that reason can't penetrate. You allude to the truth, which is that it's what "they" want, whoever they are.

Dreher is certainly a strange duck. He makes largely red-pill evaluations of where liberal and enlightenment thinking has brought us, yet he refuses to align himself with any sort of reactionary movement that might run contrary to our enlightened order. It is certainly bizarre and frustrating to watch. He still places a lot of credibility in Douthat and the like who seem to think that if we just stick to our long standing principles and perhaps pray hard enough, liberals will find it in their hearts to become conciliatory.. Rubbish!

Despite all that, his blog makes a decent gateway drug for non red-pilled conservatives and centrist types. It's been a pretty good compendium of the cultural rot we face in society today. Of course, if one wants answers beyond his BenOp, they will have to look elsewhere. This is largely my own experience - I read his blog, got pissed off and found VD, Molyneux, etc.

When a gov doctor/bureaucrat has to hem and haw around the science! proven issue of STD transmission rates via butt sex during a tv interview, all because it will hurt the feelings of gays who wanted to donate blood after the orlando club shooting, a little direct straight to the point vulgarity is needed in society.

81. tublecane: Racism was the first taboo (There are now many more) because it did not seem fair to many Whites, who had little experience with Blacks, that they should not be treated like the rest of us. Back of the bus, segregated schools, fire hoses and police dogs for the uppity, all this looked very bad from the outside. Had left-handers been treated the same way, the taboo would have been against "handism" Or would that be "leftism"?

@84-You didn't go back far enough. Why were they noticing blacks all of a sudden, when they hadn't before? Why were they seeing hoses and dogs. Jim Crow had been around for decades without non-Southerners weighing in.

Maybe people are discovering that there is no such thing as racism. Just natural preferences for your own tribe. The same way that people will one day discover that the concept of homophobia doesn't really exist either. "Phobia" is an irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational about fearing a disease.

@91-"phobia" was long attached to other words to denote dislike of, with psychological connotations, prior to its application to homosexuality. Francophobes, for instance, don't have an irrational fear of Frenchmen; they just don't like them.

Bo Sears wrote:While calling someone else a "racist" has been a non-starter for the diverse white Americans, there are a lot of tools in the tool box that can shatter a drive-by verbal or written assault against them. The number one tool is "supremacist" which can stop cucks in their tracks and which is almost always present in SJW assaults. "Supremacist" is still a fear-word, and it does apply to people who say or write things about the diverse white Americans as a whole demographic. Attacking back with a fear-word almost always changes the flow of any controversy and "supremacist" applies to anyone who claims the right to name, label, define, or describe the diverse white Americans...it is obvious, in fact, that it is the first step into the quicksand of supremacy.

"Racism" or "anti-white" do not move the attackers emotional take on the situation.

What should also be noted is that slurs are committed by omission as well as commission. For example, there is no truth more obvious (and celebrated as recently as 35 years ago) than our diversity. The reason it is never attached to white Americans is that our adversaries' goal is to put us into one box, making us more easy to put into "boxcars." Consider then-US Senator Obama in 2008 characterizing his mom's mom as "a typical white person" meaning "no diversity over there."

The other invisible slander is that we are not quite "Americans." With almost every other demographic, you'll see it attached: African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, and American Indian or Native American. Only the diverse white Americans are never called "Americans."

These are all openings in the social war we see around us to attack back.

Bo Sears for Thread Winner

Bo Sears addresses the questions of "where are the cleavage planes to divide our enemies? Where are the lines of attack?

Just a few highlights-

* The number one tool is "supremacist" which can stop cucks in their tracks and which is almost always present in SJW assaults.

(Note. Usually in the subtext. The implicit question is always 'who reigns supreme over WHOM?' Basic socio-sexual-dynamics.)

* shatter a drive-by verbal or written assault

(Nice one. Aka punch back twice as hard. Shatter The Narrative.)

* Attacking back with a fear-word. (That one qualifies as a sequel to SJWAL.)

87. tublecane: If you're still reading this, my guess is that race became an issue in the 1950s because Communists in the U.S. had given up on the working class. We are now their greatest hate-object, and any weapon will do to hurt us.

94. The "phobia" suffix may at times be used without psychological connotations, but in the cases of "homo" and xeno", it's more than connotation, it's an accusation. As above, any weapon will do.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.